BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

16 results for “house property”+ Section 216clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka472Delhi358Mumbai317Bangalore168Jaipur61Kolkata46Ahmedabad44Chandigarh42Hyderabad37Raipur33Lucknow32Chennai28Pune22Calcutta16Indore16Surat12Rajkot10Cuttack9Nagpur9Telangana8Visakhapatnam6Amritsar5Varanasi4SC4Rajasthan3Patna2Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 153A28Section 143(3)17Addition to Income16Section 234B11Section 698Section 2(22)(e)8Disallowance7Section 686Section 1325

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

216 (All); CIT-1 v. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj); CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava as reported in [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) Ashok Pal Daga v. CIT as reported in [1996] 220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT v. Metachem Industries as reported in [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Mark Hospitals

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed
Section 17(2)(iii)4
Cash Deposit4
Deemed Dividend4
ITAT Indore
21 Nov 2022
AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

216 ITR 0376 (Bom.) has held that the assessee was entitled to relief under s. 54 where she entered into an agreement with co-operative housing society for purchase of residential flats and paid almost entire consideration within two years of conveyance of her residential property. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

house property. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 lease deeds, the assessee was entitled to annual lease rent of ₹1,00,000/- from each property and the same was not offered to tax in the return of income. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or evidence during appellate

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 429/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 427/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 428/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 430/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 949/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

property was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee, then burden was on the Department to demonstrate the same. Besides that even the differential amount between the estimated expenditure given by the AO and assessed by the DVO is less than 10%, which being margin different, then the valued determined by the DVO should be ignored. Therefore

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 952/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

property was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee, then burden was on the Department to demonstrate the same. Besides that even the differential amount between the estimated expenditure given by the AO and assessed by the DVO is less than 10%, which being margin different, then the valued determined by the DVO should be ignored. Therefore

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 255/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68

property was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the assessee, then burden was on the Department to demonstrate the same. Besides that even the differential amount between the estimated expenditure given by the AO and assessed by the DVO is less than 10%, which being margin different, then the valued determined by the DVO should be ignored. Therefore

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

house is handed over to any customer. The volume of the material at site was also too small which cannot justify the undisclosed income of Rs.5 crores. Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the above stated facts concluded that the addition made was purely on the basis of the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act and deserves

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

property was transferred during F.Y 2009-10. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the AO has made addition by disallowing development expenses of Rs.2,93,76,558/- on presumption basis whereas the fact is that the claim made by the assessee for development expenses has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

property was transferred during F.Y 2009-10. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the AO has made addition by disallowing development expenses of Rs.2,93,76,558/- on presumption basis whereas the fact is that the claim made by the assessee for development expenses has been

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 442/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

216 Malviya Traders 3,200 Fabrication Work 2,789 Om Plywood 4,639 Cermic World 20,000 Pratap Plywood 23,635 Rashi Insulation 7,783 MP Traders 10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 405/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

216 Malviya Traders 3,200 Fabrication Work 2,789 Om Plywood 4,639 Cermic World 20,000 Pratap Plywood 23,635 Rashi Insulation 7,783 MP Traders 10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 441/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

216 Malviya Traders 3,200 Fabrication Work 2,789 Om Plywood 4,639 Cermic World 20,000 Pratap Plywood 23,635 Rashi Insulation 7,783 MP Traders 10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid